…it’s a mark of how stagnant our energy policy has gotten that Obama was able to offer little more than he had a year ago. In fact, he could offer less. Last year there was at least a chance that the country could have both increased drilling, and a long-term carbon price. Now, for the most part, just the drilling remains, along with a suite of familiar policies … Obama pledged to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil by one-third in a decade, but offered little new in the way to get there.

It’s a creditable speech, emphasizing the need for responsible extraction of natural gas and safe production of nuclear power. It includes a rebuke (a tad too mild, to my eye) to those in Congress who see the status quo as energy policy. But there are “same-old” lines on biofuels and no mention of the need for Americans, as a patriotic responsibility at the very least, to reconsider energy habits.

The truth is that the Obama administration’s energy policy looks more like Sarah Palin’s applause lines than the cap-and-trade program it advocated during the election. That’s not because the White House wouldn’t prefer the plan it pushed in 2008 to the plan it’s pushing in 2011. Congress, not the administration, opposes to cap-and-trade. But we are where we are, and there’s no use dressing it up. You can put lipstick on “drill, baby, drill,” but it’s still “drill, baby, drill.”

David Roberts, Grist (technically a pre-reaction, more to come later):

I really do think that energy security is an area where Obama could make waves. A muscular climate-hawk stance on energy security could shake up some stale partisan debates and generate some new coalitions. But that’s not going to happen if Obama takes this half-ass approach.

Roughly 350 feet below the surface of the Straits of Mackinac — about the same depth as a passenger rail tunnel that links England and France — Michigan officials envision a 10-foot-wide tunnel to house the controversial Line 5 oil and gas pipeline.